If this thing makes a ton of money, they may make a sequel. And it may feature the same actors. But that's about all you're going to get.

Anyway, enough of that. I'm going to go read the article now.

Nice write-up, fella. I'm really looking forward to this one!

Well, that and the giant ass-fuck cup of coffee I just drank...

Anyone who gets so wrapped up in Trek that they spend thousands of dollars on conventions, DVD's, costumes, or whatever.. well, they've let their fandom for a TV show get a little away with itself. That's fine. Perfectly harmless. And yes, many many people with Aspergers do (for some reason) become big fans of Star Trek.

But if you're the sort to be reduced to a shaking emotional wreck, while almost tearfully decrying that Trek *V* is the best Trek movie so far?? Then you are a basket case. Q.E.D. No further proof required. Call off Dr. House, we got this.

Still a skeptic but anticipating May 8th...

The squid-like ship is Romulan.

I'm still unsure about this flick, but am positive it will be entertaining just unsure if it will follow Trek 'lore'.

As for folks saying only one sequel "maybe" because of keeping the crew together... Star Trek has the tradition of getting better after a crew change. TOS got Checkov. TNG dropped Tasha, and got Crusher back after Pulaski. DS9 got Worf. Voyager got 7 of 9. Not to mention there are Trek stories where several secondary characters did not appear. And I felt that finding something for each character to do in each movie turned into a Maguffin. As long as they can get the big three together Kirk, Spock and McCoy (Guts, Brain and Conscience), they can tell any story, whether as backup they need a tech, language, or physical solution (Scotty, Uhura, Sulu).

And playfully or not, Trek V was a fucking joke which deserved much ridicule and mockery.

IMO, some movies, like Godzilla, Phantom Menace, Trek V, deserve to be ripped to shit. If you liked them, then retort and justify, and mock my tastes, and be funny about it.

(The unspoken assumption being that you're not doing it to a six year old, or someone with the emotional maturity of a six year old.)

Look I'm not mocking your love of SW, and I can understand if you were a young immature kid, but the fact that you still giggle over tormenting some poor Trekkie nerd? Maybe I am getting the wrong picture here, but damn you sound like you were a douche back then, and you haven't completely given it up.

I love your writing, you are one of my faves on this site, but that story sort of disturbs me, whatever dude.

Also, Michael Giacchino kicks ass. Get some of his scores for LOST to hear some of the really great musical themes he's been able to weave throughout the show.

Tell me you wouldn't think : Someone's off his meds.

Echo the sentiment of many - why recast existing characters that (whilst not by any stretch the greatest actors) were played by people who MADE the show.

Well now they are taking the risk, and what they are doing now. (which they only have the luxuary to do because the film has been pushed back 5 months so is finished way ahead of "schedule"),is spending their time showing people that this is different to the other movies. It will be "cool" and as well as all the usefull talk and character stuff they are also spending the money on the action and energy that's often felt to missing from Trek movies. A big movie, which Trek films always tried to be, needs a good balance. All action is no good (generally) and neither is all talk (for this type of movie) there's a balance to be drawn and Trek, by neccessity, always had to skew too heavily away from the energy. I've no doubt, once they built on the work they've done well so far, in attracting the non Trek audience, Paramount will work on convincing the Trek fans that the soul of Trek is there too.

However if it comes down to having to convince the "fans" (who will on the whole go regardless), or the "future fans" then it's not even a choice. Batman Begins $370m+ Casino Royale $590M+ Iron Man $580m+ First Contact $142m+ Now if they HAVE to choose which audience do you think they'd plump for? The Trek fanbase , or at least that part of it that pays to see Trek films has diminished, new fans are needed.

Now of course we do NOT want them turn it into effects filled pap, but, so far, there's little to suggest that they are trying to. The question has to be why do so many Trek fans think they have?

Anyway I've said this a cpl of times during the Week , and Moriarty echoes it here. The 1st thing to do is make a good film, 2nd is make good Trek. I've always had the feeling that too many "fans" are concerned with making good Trek 1st and good film somewhere way down th list of priorities if we can around to it. Like the assumption is if it's good Trek it must naturally follow as a good film, or worse that well , we get it, us Trekies(ers) if everyone else doesn't get it who cares. (Or maybe they just aren't as clever, or subtle as we are.) I just remember being around 10/11 when Trek II came out and it seemed like EVERYONE wanted to go see it, by the time Trek VI came out it was this thing, that old men and geeks went to and it wasn't such a big deal. 1st contact semed to take in a few extra people, bu basically by then most of the people going were Trek fans, with a few stragglers here or there. That's the only thing Paramount has to worrie about, apathy from non fans. A $150m fan only gross for this film will kill Trek, or at best consign it back to the "..distinctly cheap-looking .." & "looks like a distended television episode," (to quote EMpire's review of 1st contact, although the same sentiment appears amongst many Trek movies)type movies we've mostly had before.

The limited audience is precisly why they've started again, prescisely why they cut the 1st full trailer they way they did, and precisely why They are out there hoping for, and getting, glowing reviews from as many non Trek people as possible.

One of the best examples is when you see people "trying" to make a good kids film. Whenevr it's made in a childish way that's obviously "throwing" everything you think a kid would like at it you tend to get a poor film, and one that it's a struggle for any parent to sit through. Then you get the pixar / Miyaki / and original Star Wars way. You make a good film. The story just happens to deal with things in a way that means it's appropriate & accessable to kids. The level and tone of anything say violent or sexy is at a level.

If you somehow fail to make it good Trek, say it's only 5 out of 10 for hitting the right Trek notes, but the film is entertaining, fun and in many ways a "good" film you've won, because (hopefully) the wider audience will turn up and want more, and at least you've sen a good film.

Serenity failed at the box office. I'm not sure if one of the reasons was people thinking they wouldn't get it as they hadn't seen the show? But that's one of the reasons Paramount are so keen to let everyone know this is a beggining and you can watch it even if you know nothing about Trek, I never watched Firefly, because by the time it started over here I already knew it was cancelled, so I didn't see the point of watching yet another canceled genre show. Oh and I always wonder if Serenity had been a hit if we'd have been lucky enough to get a Farscape movie, or at least more tv movies.

It was worse with Farscape (admittedly a weird show hard to pick up in the middle) becaues it was a successfull show when they cancelled it?!?!?!?!?

I love Farscarpe and always thought it would have easily worked as a film but like MRZ said its for fans not mainstream, I guess?

I just wish that they could find a way to "rescue" Kirk from his death. A small, limited cameo at the end would be pretty cool (even after the credits roll).

http://tinyurl.com/6c4ssd

Rumour also says he is going to be played as a super gay lisper, too weird to be untrue?

Damn you Orci! DAMN YOU TO HELL!

As for the Enterprise taking off. It's Start Trek it's already established that Starships can fly in atmosphere. I'm not "hard core" enough to know exactly how it all works, inertial dampners, and Structual integrity fields? anti gravity or something. But The Enteerprise has "flown" in Earth's atmosphere in TOS; not to mention the bird of prey which was hovering in atmosphere in at least 3 movies to my memory, and leaving the "gravity" well in a matter of seconds, or fractions of a second with no trouble at all. Also if you're not getting materials from the Astroid belt it makes sense to build the thing closer to the materials, labour etc AND in a much safer enviroment, i.e an atmosphere and gravity. Especially if you don't have to worry about heavy lidfting rockets / space Elevators to get the thing off the ground. Anyway I always liked that Shot in Trek III of the Bird of prey taking off.

It's funny for sure, but I guess you just turn into a techno geek and argue within the established rules. You know how Superman can barely stand when exposed to the merest slither of real (green) Kryptonite so could never fly an entir island of the stuff off into space. You don't KNOW what a real Superman could do but the rules say he turns weak as new born babe iand is essentially powerless.... ah but that's a whole other talkback right? :) It's more the reverse of what you say. Sure you could build them in sppace, but if you aren't mining the asteroids for the materials to build it why bother sending all the parts, not to mention loads of poor people in eva suits out into a gravityless (technically) vacuum when you can just build the thing where the people and materials are at much lless risk, and probably cost / time. Gota be faster working in Jeans and a t-shirt than a bulky, oh shit I tore my suit) eva suit right? I always thought of it backwards, from that point of view. It takes them seconds to leave a planet's atmosphere, with no g-force issues so the space building thing never sat right to me.

There is a whole cool chapter with Sisko and Kira walking over Ambassador class hulls, being built in massive pits in the ground, the star drive sections where the parts made in space.

Is this really what we are discussing anyway?, they recast Spock, I can't fucking wait to see how Quinto does.

Utopia Planetia ship yards on Mars for example, as any decent trek fan worth his salt should know.

Where the hell have you been? I haven't seen you since Pre-The Dark Knight TB's.

Why argue about these petty details? Its not like this is Star Wars.

It's the end of civilisation as we know it for sure people.

We have lost many comrades lately, LIBERAL WARRIOR shall be missed.

Love for it to be a good solid movie, but I'm confident that we'll get something on par with the other quality films the writers and director were involved with in the past: Armageddon...Mission: Impossible III...The Island...Legend of Zorro...Transformers...

I do not hold out any hope for this film with that track record. Hell, even their TV work is sub-par. LOST is ok in general. I enjoy the island mystery, could care less about the flashbacks. I do agree that season four was pretty damn good, but that's mostly because something was actually happening. I think the infusion of Brian K Vaughan healped greatly. ALIAS I just couldn't get into no matter how hard I tried. It was just dull cliché after cliché. And the less said about that dreadful waste of time FRINGE, the better. The openings always suck me in, but then the main cast shows up and the uninteresting begins. Mediocre acting, stupid characters and every show is written by a room full of chain smoking monkeys that think they're smarter than the audience.

Every episode is the same... Intro: Odd, interesting mystery. Main Story: Uninteresting group of mediocre actors investigate, argue if main scientist is insane and should be re-committed to the asylum, a deus ex machina is introduced that helps solve the mystery. Ending: Mad scientist is redeemed, bad guy is killed (then revealed to be clone or is revived by mystery enemies) or bad guy gets away (and then is killed by mystery enemy) and the main cast is really none the wiser to whatever is really going on. It's a show that has very little forward momentum.

Ugh. Damnit. I said more than the less I wanted to. Damn time on my hands.

He does the "young man rising to the challenge" thing very well.

http://tinyurl.com/6j9aey

Those prominent cheek bones? They spell power. Nothing like a tight grip of wealthy power milking the half and half.

You know how much fucking money Bay has? He has the finest hair care products at his disposal.

Spock: The brain

McCoy: The heart

Kirk: The balls

My advice, get your ass on Gremlins 3 and get that shit to Joe Dante pronto!!

Predictions: This Trek will open huge and it will be flavour of the month in all the media outlets/mags etc. A little time will pass. The drop-off will be huge be it a few months or even a sequel. Then Paramount will go running back to the dedicated fanbase (and I am not a Trekkie by any means, but I love to dip into TNG and TOS) for their support.

Its coming up more and more recently as a legtimate business question. Take Pushing Daisies - by now it's proved it won't by a Lost type runaway smash, but you have a hardcore fanbase who will buy the DVD's no-matter what. I'm UK based and US fictional TV is great, but the message your networks send is "Unless your show is a mainstream hit, we're going to fuck it over so theres no point in getting invested in the start".

Ignore me, I'm still bitter over Journeyman. Actually sod that, wheres my Season six of Quantum Leap :(

Glad to hear JJ's new interpretation of "Trek" is turning heads. I hope mine is one of them.

Paramount may be many things but business-savvy is definitely one of them and this move will go down as one of their best yet.

I predict once this film gets its run next year, the talk among the hard core will quickly shift from all the things they hoped would(n't) happen in this, to all those ignorant fools who LOVED IT and don't know what the fuck they're talking about...

It also got futher and futher away from the "state of the art" the balanc between, talk, energy and action got more and more askew as the budgets stayed "small" and the film makers were less able to kep that balance. The reputation for Trk films being mosly talk, little action , no sex (the antithesis of the 60's show!) and the die was cast.

Now this film is trying to redres that balance, to get that ration between talking (moaralising and so forth) energy, pace, sex and (the horror) action back. More mass appeal does NOT mean lesser quality. Trek 2 had mass appeal, as did Railders of the lost Ark, Jaws and so on.

Oh one more thing, it's been said before, by many people including me, Just because someone or people like something that you or I don't DOES NOT mena they must be a moron! It just doesn't. People can like Citizen Kane, Casablanca, Blade Runner, Jaws, the Godfather, Yojimbo and so on AND have fun watching Transformers you know? They aren't stupid. People that asssume they are are basiclly like Fraisier and his brother. Elitest, so busy only enjoy fine wine and fancy dinning that they can't can't see the simple pleasure in chomping down on a nice burger or hot dog, or a bag oof fish and chips. Sometimes you just want to eat a burger! and it is possible for films to just be plain fun.

This movie really does look like Pure Trek as intended. In other words if Trek had started as a movie not a TV show, it may have been something like this. Bright, colourfull, optomistic, sexy "COOL", with a good odse of action to match the drama. Now some people are saying they don't think the drama, the character will be there. Well nobody's seen this film, so nobody know that. It's certainly been implied that it's there, and hinted at (at least) in the footage showm. Fottage which has met with universal praise. (varying degrees of praise, but praise nevrtheless.

Trek can't be the poor little brother AND expect to get a new audience. Here's an example..

"After plunging through a bargain basement optical effect" or

"wisely saves his special effects budget for two key sequences" 1st Contact Effects alone will never make a good movie, but the ability to build better sets, have more location and yes, better special efects and action is key both to drawing in (and keeping) new fans, but also to getting a genuine Trek movie onscreen. Unless of course it's one of the just talking episodes, but why put that in a movie and it's still be expensive. Sure you could make the last Bourne film for $60m (say $70m to account for some of Damon's wages) and storywise keep it more or less the same, but it would be a lesser expeience, less visceral, perhaps a little less "realistic".

When they started Trek movies they were playing wth the big boys, $150m is actually on the low side for a movie like this, on this scale, but they are finally trying to play with the big boys again.

It still huurts me to think that because I went to the movies in a group of about 5, MI2 got some of my money. The 1st one I thought was just average at best as a movie (with 1 good set piece and one ridiculous but fun set piece). It was awful as a mission impossible movie. The2nd, WHOO, an eve worse Mission Impossible film, and an awful movie. So many things were wrong with it it still burns me up to think about it. Soo you can see why I never bothered with 3, despite my usual efforts to see as many movies as I can.

Anyway I think Paramount maybe saw whatever good JJ did in that film WITH interference from the Star, and figured he'd do a better job without it on Trek. I also have to say I still think the episodes of Alias and Lost writtn and directed by JJ are outstanding, and the shows suffered greatly when he left to do other things.

As far as I can tell, there are two ways of thinking when it comes to Star Trek...The idea that Star Trek IS Kirk, Spock, McCoy on the Enterprise...no matter who plays them OR it is the universe that was created over 40 years. The problem with the Kirk/Spock/McCoy idea is that unlike any other franchise in history those characters are synonymous with the actors who played them...for 40 years. That is a long time, and when they started getting older 21 years ago that is when they started expanding Star Trek beyond that group into the future of the other TV shows.

The problem with the Universe idea is that the more you give yourself over to an alternate universe like they created, the more distance it puts between the fan and the rest of the world. For a long period of time there were only 6 hours of Star Wars to consider and the books where there were something like 600+ hours of Star Trek adventures on film or TV. Star Trek is so well defined and so many stories have been told that it is daunting for newbies.

And Paramount wants something with that Brand Name that is acceptable to newbies.

In our current culture that defines New as Better and Old as Bad, you won't get new Star Trek fans for old episodes or stories, no matter how enjoyable they are...and I am realizing I am not part of that culture anymore. The TV channels I watch most are Turner Classic Movies or Discovery Channel. The TV shows I like are canceled, the movies I like bomb at the box-office. And yet total shit like Knight Rider gets picked up for a full season and people just LOVE Transformers...which is just awful, people.

Paramount, for decades, coddled Star Trek fans into thinking that they were special, that their shared universe was both safe and sacred--that it was indeed different than the other fictional universes. But, in the end it is just Product. The last few movies and TV shows were not done in by the franchise being tired, but by bad writing. I am sure that JJ Abrams could have done a good Next Generation movie if he wanted, but he is NOT a Star Trek Universe fan--he only knows Kirk and Spock.

Star Trek fans are split up the middle by this new movie. Casual fans are excited that there might be interest in the brand again, the Trekkie/Trekker fans are hurt that their special universe is basically dead. Some fans want this movie to do well so they can say they are Star Trek fans without being looked at funny. As if Star Trek will ever be cool. Others want it to fail, so that it keeps the 40 year legacy safe, if dead.

JJ Abrams wants Star Trek to be Star Wars. George Lucas wants Star Wars to turn into Star Trek, with his plans for TV Series and cannonical universe. Battlestar Galactica is soon over. Babylon Five is still a show that no one outside of it's core fans care about. Stargate is dead. Americans want Magic over Science, Easy over Hard, Nihilism over Optimism (Dark Knight, anyone?).

And I am old now, comfortable with watching my old shows than caring about what the Kids are watching. So be it.

Others have already noted that it's do or die for Trek. After two crappy series I wouldn't mind the die alternative, but if they can really bring back that optimistic essence of Trek, then I'm all for a reboot/prequel/whatever.

DS9 actually changed what Trek was about, and in fact challenged some of the ideas in earlier Trek shows. In other words, there was a reason for it to exist. That hasn't been true for much of what came later.

Oh there's a barrier to get over, but so far it looks like the trailer is working on it's target audience.

As for s apick and san Trailer, well I should think the ship looks new and shiny, so di the old Enterprise, in a 60's kind of way with it's primary colours and flashing lights, and chunky knobs. As for the refit Enterprise, parts of that (sickbay especially) are the 70's equivilents of the new Enterprise. (that's mainly at aall this Apple Enterprise stuff I keep reading.)

I get what you're saying about heart, My wife and I say that for almost every "genre" trailer we see. Well it could be good IF... It could be great sci-fi / fantays IF.. or it could just be fun, or just plain tripe. You just can't know (unless it say .."directed by Uwe Boll!)

What I keep coming back to iss this, the trailer is designed, very specifically, to show non Trek fans, and Trek haters that this movies, as well as the heart and talk that you expect in a Trek movie, ALSO has these things that you WANT from a big sci-fi film. The things you always thought Trek couldn't afford, or was so caught up in pleasing ONLY it's hard core fans that it didn't address.

You know I always wondered how we went through so many Trek films with no "sex" whatsoever. The only time it's really done, and it's very funny when it is, is with Iman in Trek VI... the "what is it with you?" scene. I never counted or anything, but it alwaus felt like Kirk, and in the othe shows too, was always hitting on some hot alien.

Anyway what makes you think I'm a casula fan by the way? Love TOS, like next gen (after it fond its feet) Love DS9 (again it had to find it's feet but the "dark side of Trek masive story arc thing). The only series I didn't see all of was Voyager, which I thought turned into utter garbage. I'm a big fan, not a pointy ear wearing "fanatic" but a big fan. My sister's a fan, my wife is a fan and my father-in-law is a fan. Suffice to say he was a fan before I was born (wild guess but as he's 65 I'll assume he may have been a fan before you were born too, and he's looking forward to it. It'll be one of the 2 films he bothers to go out to a year now.

The one thing i do think is that the nit picking, things like where the ship was buily, appearing all over the net could answer The Founder's question, by convincing many that Trek is as uncool as it's been for years and to be avoided more than last year's mobile phone. So far it seems to be pulling in a good chunk of the "mainstream" audience, but there's plenty of time to remind everyone how uncool Trek is.

The next trailer or 2 will be key. They need to show the plot, the story of the film, and what is going on. If they panic and forget there "future fan prime directive to try and appease the old fans they could drive away poential viewers. The balance has to be right between action and plot. The Dark Knight & Casino Royale seemed to get it right, but then they were both following, commercially successful films. This one isn't.

In TOS the one where they go back in time to "observe" and they beam up an M.P who just stands still with a frozen look on his face for the whole episode.

Mr Z. I'm with you, they have to make a good film. Tell a good story well, and hopefully get the spirit of old Trek right.

Whatever, I'll check it out because it looks pretty awesome and a great 21st century update to the story.

Oh one more thing, if human life is the main concern, which it is implied it is in Start Trek, none of that matters and your gonnas build it where it's safest, and easiest for your workforce. that's in atmosphere.

They're Borg Jim, but not as we know them.

It's funny because I just keep getting dragged into arguments about it with the people who have an issue with it not being built in space and all kinds of other shit that really isn't important. I say a few times earlier on in the thread that the ships fly in atmosphere a few times. It really does not matter.

Here's what I said.... "JimmyJoe RedSky by u.k. star Nov 22nd, 2008 01:05:08 PM I'm not guessing about stuff. I mean of course I have NO idea what they do in this film, but I have seen starships flying around in atmosphere, with no problems in Star Trek before. In TOS the Enterprise is flying in the Earth's atmosphere, in Star Trek VI the Bird of Prey "flys" about Vulcan and Earthwith no issues, and no gravity well / gpfprce effects. So do the shuttles (I know they are smaller) none of them with even 1 iota of aeordynamic build about them. It's just a given that the tech they use makes in atmosphere flight no problem. "

seriously the earring thing is better than this argument...

Granted, it was easier during the first 20 years when there were only the original shows, the first 4 movies and the novels. Oh, the novels--they were treated like sacred texts that exposed hidden truths on that world...only to be forgotten or overwritten by Roddenberry and others with Next Gen, First Contact and urgh, Enterprise.

Well, that's fucking stupid because if that's the case Spock would still look like a 20-something by the time of Star Trek VI.

So that's another huge mistake on the level of welding a starship on Earth.

GAAAHHHHH!!!!!!

The aircraft carrier would reak in half. Seriously, you remember I said all the tech they use, the SIF and all that other shit. Plus to continue this nonsense, an aircraft carrier isn't made to be "lifeted into space", the Starships are.

oh and a for the sruts collapsing, maybe that's why they supporting the whole thing with scaffoold then huh?

The question is did you guys watch Trek? Where the ships were in atmosphere several times.

whilst I guess it aint adanantium, I really don't know, or care what it is. I acept it's tough enough, maybe enhanced by Trek tech, but I accept it like I accept warp drive and hand held energy weapons.

The big stuff has to be there, they have a mission , a code a prime directive and so on, the tiny details, like the doors having to be exactly 1.9m wide or something hell no. Oh and earrings can only be worn if they are the exact same design as those worn by the tv Uhura. For crying out loud people, we want a good film, a good story, and good Trek, if you're really gonna be distracted by things like the ship being on Earth, well God help you. How can you accept Warpp drive and tranparent alluminium if you can't accept that they may just be a little ahead of us in metalurgy and building techniques in the 23rd century?

Yes, the one with the whales, also known as the most sucessful Trek movie.

And yes, I mean DORK. Not GEEK, like oh look at me-- I like movies and its cute to call myself a geek. No-- a fucking dork that needs to get a fucking life. No wonder this franchise sucks giant meaty balls, because they feel the need to please you douche bags. Finally someone says fuck the Trekkies, and I'm interested. Bravo JJ.

speaking of the original script and novelization - they really delved into the klingon heirarchy on the ship (with command being taken by the most powerful klingon)

they explained how they are able to get to the centre of the universe so quickly - sybok spent his life formulating how a warp core could be modified... The klingons were able to follow them by replicate the same warp signature.

also at the end, it was only Kirk who saw God as a bearded man. All the other characters saw their own perception of what God was. And the monsters which were unleased were visious.

Also, Shakaree wasn't a big desert world, but a massive garden planet and the area where they find God was an incredible formation of circlar mountains.

Trek 5, according to the original script and Novel would have been exactly as shatner envisioned.... the most spectacular star trek of all ...

The original script and novel to generations was also vastly superior to the watered down POS we got.

Get THE FUCK over it!

All these assholes whining about this sorta shit are the reason RDM left Trek - and you will notice in BSG they do not bother to explain ANYTHING. Because it DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER.

If it matters to you, you will devise a way to make it work in your head. The rest of us don't give a shit.

To be young in the late seventies and early eighties when the first four films were coming out, usually within days of my birthday or the Holidays, was a golden part of my youth...and Dr. McCoy was always my favorite part of those films. He is always emotional, sarcastic and caustic--an elder Han Solo, always the one to cry "bullshit" when the situations got silly. And Goddamn it, he had a pill that could grow kidneys. That is the shit.

I remember the very first Happy Meals that McDonalds had were tie-ins to The Motion Picture in '79. I still have my give-away poster promoting Wrath of Khan form '82, my dog-eared copy of Shane Johnson's "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" from 1986 and the Newsweek article talking about the 20th Anniversary of the show. There are lots of spaceships in my studio, many of them from Star Wars and Star Trek...and a 1996 Sci-Pub-Tech Cutaway poster of the original USS Enterprise sitting above my workstation, always inspiring me to imagine Function when I am drawing Form.

The Devil is in the Details. This was the cement for me in that universe.

I guess the thing that bothers me is that I think, with proper writing, directing and funding (including marketing) the universe had many years left in it...but what do I know? I'm only one of the people who has been buying their product for the last 29 years. If Rick Berman had done his job properly, and thought about the films as events rather than two-hour episodes, we might not be where we are now.

And if JJ Abrams had created a new crew, a new ship and a new century and set it after the shows we have seen...then I think everyone would all be happy and excited to see something NEW set in that universe, instead of winking at the audience and re-hashing what is already classic. He could have created similar situations with new names, and been able to boldly go (sorry) where no one has been yet.

But it is a brand. Gotta remember the BRAND. THE FRANCHISE. THE PRODUCT.

We HAVE to get people to buy NEW things...it will fix the economy--who cares if no one has original IDEAS anymore. Transformers proved, among other recent movie franchises (SW, Indy) that the name recognition is enough to get butts in seats and tickets bought--never mind the quality of what people are buying. And the sinking quality of the last ten years or so has lowered expectations as well. So, who cares if Blockbuster movies are written by committee and don't challenge people anymore, only rehashing what they have already seen--following the by-the-numbers-Joseph-Campbell -six-point-story bullshit that modern Hollywood thinks every story needs--or the Product Placements?

We are supposed to shut up and take it. Don't think--BUY. CONSUME. DO WHAT WE TELL YOU.

Well, this movie is made. It is done. They have spent the shitload of money on it. And people will see it, because they tell us to in commercials, and by showing the best footage so everyone will get excited, and by the multiple posts on this site and others that it is going to be the best thing ever, even if you don't really want it or need it.

Well, it better be. It better be the second-freaking-coming.

Because if they are going to write over some of the best fan memories of my life, saying that it isn't important--that Newer IS better than Old--then it is what I DEMAND of it.

With the money I have already spent on Star Trek, I deserve it.

But as I said the argument's been done to death more than once anyone who still gives a toss about it can just read what everyone else has said. Especialy the parts where it says WHO CARES. Oh same for the Spock thing, especially as no one knows how old he is in the movie, and we can't understand why it matters if he's "young".

*Unzips pants*

Here is to fandom, of all kinds--from the most casual to the total fanatic. It's what this site is all about.

People have been mentioning the ISS - if you're interested, read this article about the Russian's ill-advised decision to make a space shuttle:

http://tinyurl.com/6npvou

I particularly like this bit:

"Still unfinished today, after a decade of efforts and dozens of assembly flights, the ISS could have been hauled into orbit (fully assembled) by only a few Energia boosters, had international partners adopted it into the program"

They got shafted on the effects, hey were incredibly poor, and whilst effects cannot make a good movie, bad ones can ruin one, Those effects took a lot of the potential joy out of it.

Anti climax. The end of the film was dissapointing. Again partly due to the effects, and as I recall themm shafting Shatner on hi s"flying demons" and all the other stuff that was meant to be trapped behind the barrier.

Oh there's a good story hiding in there, but it's far from allowed to be up on screen. Oh there's plenty of gravity in space, or we'd be on a dead planet travelling through space in some kind of straight line. The bigger something is the more it is affected. But thankfully, that argument is over. :)

At the risk of reigniting this whole bloody argument about spaceships being built in space again, have you guys heard about this:

http://tinyurl.com/6hl4rg

A *FULL SCALE* Enterprise coming to a town near you - Mori, did you guys know about this??